DOCSLIB.ORG

The Battle of Shiloh: Triumph, Tragedy, and the High Cost of War

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Battle of Shiloh: Triumph, Tragedy, and the High Cost of War North Alabama Historical Review Volume 4 North Alabama Historical Review, Volume 4, 2014 Article 9 2014 The Battle of Shiloh: Triumph, Tragedy, and the High Cost of War Kayla Scott University of North Alabama Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.una.edu/nahr Part of the Public History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Scott, K. (2014). The Battle of Shiloh: Triumph, Tragedy, and the High Cost of War. North Alabama Historical Review, 4 (1). Retrieved from https://ir.una.edu/nahr/vol4/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UNA Scholarly Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Alabama Historical Review by an authorized editor of UNA Scholarly Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Battle of Shiloh: Triumph, Tragedy, and the High Cost of War Kayla Scott The Battle of Shiloh, also known as the Battle of Pittsburg Landing, was one of the bloodiest battles in terms of deaths and casualties during the Civil War.1 Unlike the preconceived notions that the Union and Confederacy had held, the Battle of Shiloh was evidence that the war would be a long, bloody fight filled with errors. The two-day battle was fought on Sunday, April 6 and Monday, April 7, 1862.2 Union General Ulysses S. Grant joined the Army of the Tennessee after they had moved to Savannah, Tennessee. 3 The location of the camp at Pittsburg Landing was due to General William Tecumseh Sherman’s recommendation of the area. In a letter dated March 18, Sherman referred to the area of Pittsburg Landing as being a 1 David Goldfield, America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation, (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2011), 224. 2 G.T. Beauregard, "The Campaign of Shiloh," in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Vol. 1. eds. Robert U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buel. (Edison, New Jersey: Castle, n.d.), 583-593. 3 Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, Selected Letters 1839-1865, eds. Mary D. McFeely and William S. McFeely (New York: The Library of America, 1990), 219-224. “magnificent plain for camping and drilling, and a military point of great strength.” 4 After his arrival, Grant ordered his military engineer to “lay out a line to entrench.”5 According to Grant, it was found that fortification of the area was not feasible. In addition, Grant regarded the construction of fortifications as time-consuming and demoralizing. In his memoirs, Grant justified his failure to attempt the construction of fortifications by saying, “The fact is, I regarded the campaign we were engaged in as an offensive one and had no idea that the enemy would leave strong entrenchments to take the initiative when he knew he would be attacked where he was if he remained.” This statement shows that Grant was unprepared for a battle at Pittsburg Landing, despite his many protestations to the contrary. Confederate General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard later wrote that “the absence of all those ordinary precautions that habitually shield an army in the field must forbid the historian from regarding it as other than one of the most surprising surprises ever achieved.”6 In the days preceding the battle, Grant had his headquarters in Savannah. Grant would usually spend the day at Pittsburg Landing and return to Savannah in the evening. His excuse for this practice was that he was waiting on General Don Carlos Buell to arrive, and that Buell would approach from Savannah. “I remained at this point, therefore, a few days longer than I otherwise should have done, in order to meet him on his arrival.” 7 Grant planned to attack Corinth, Mississippi, as 4 Memoirs of W. T. Sherman, ed. Charles Royster (New York: Library of America, 1990), 252. 5 Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, 223-224. 6 Beauregard, "The Campaign of Shiloh," 586. 7 Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, 223-224. soon as Buell joined him. It is interesting to note that Grant was staying at an opulent estate named Cherry Mansion during his time in Savannah.8 Had he been on the field with his men, the accommodations would have been miserable in comparison. Union General William T. Sherman’s hyperactive manner led one general to remark that he was “a splendid piece of machinery with all the screws a little loose.”9 In 1861, Sherman had suffered a nervous breakdown, going so far as to think about taking his own life. Sherman was removed from command in December 1861 after his “insanity” had been publicized in several newspapers. After a rest period, he was reinstated to a command position under Grant toward the end of February 1862. On April 4, 1862, Captain Mason of the 77th Ohio learned that a large group of Confederate troops were camped a fourth of a mile from his position.10 Mason sent a sergeant to inform Colonel Hildebrand, and eventually word reached General Sherman. Without investigating the matter, Sherman commanded that the sergeant be arrested for making a fictitious report. Mason persuaded Hildebrand to come out to the field and see for himself that the report was true. After witnessing the group of rebels, Captain Hildebrand went to Sherman and verified the presence of the Confederate troops. Sherman dismissed the group as being nothing more than a scouting party. 8 Larry J. Daniel, Shiloh: The Battle That Changed the Civil War (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), 104. 9 Ibid., 80. 10 Ibid., 133-138. The next day on April 5, members of the 53rd Ohio spotted Confederate cavalrymen toward the far edge of Rea Field, south of their position.11 Colonel Jesse J. Appler sent troops to investigate. Shots were exchanged and a message was sent to Sherman to inform him of the situation. Sherman sent back a reply, telling the Colonel to return with his regiment to Ohio, “There is no enemy closer than Corinth.”12 In his memoirs, Sherman mentioned that on the day before he made this statement, a Union “advance picket” had left their assigned point and had become engaged with a small Confederate force.13 As the result of this skirmish, eleven Union soldiers were captured and eight were wounded. Ten members of the Confederate Alabama Cavalry were also captured. Beauregard mentioned this in his report as well, and noted that this incident “ought to have given the Federal general full notice that an offensive army was close behind it, and led to immediate preparation for our onset, including entrenchments.”14 However, it is clear that Sherman continued to ignore the size and scope of the enemy that was camped on his doorstep. In the days leading up to the battle, Confederate forces under the leadership of General Albert Sidney Johnston were preparing for battle. Johnston was commander-in-chief of the Confederate army at this point.15 Johnston’s scouts had notified him of the Union troops’ location beside the Tennessee River at Pittsburg Landing.16 Johnston felt that the Union’s choice of a camping spot held several 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Memoirs of W. T. Sherman, 254-255. 14 Beauregard, "The Campaign of Shiloh," 582-583. 15 Frank and Reaves, "Seeing the Elephant," 12. 16 Foote, The Civil War A Narrative, 324-325. disadvantages, and all of them were in favor of his attack plans. Johnston knew that the Union army was camped facing away from the Tennessee River and that they were without fortifications. Not only were they practically against the river, but the camps were strewn about in a highly disorganized manner. On the night of April 2, 1862, Johnston’s second-in-command, General P.G.T. Beauregard received a telegram stating that Union General Lew Wallace was heading in the direction of Pittsburg Landing. Beauregard sent Johnston a copy of the message with a note added at the end: “Now is the moment to advance, and strike the enemy at Pittsburg Landing.”17 Johnston wanted to wait for General Earl Van Dorn to arrive. However, General Braxton Bragg, who had recently been made chief of staff, agreed with Beauregard that the time to act was at hand. On April 3, 1862, General Albert Sidney Johnston sent a battle order to the Army of the Mississippi in Corinth.18 The battle order began with the words, “I have put you in motion to offer battle to the invaders of your country.”19 He went on to remind the troops to, “Remember the dependence of your mothers, your wives, your sisters, and your children on the result.” Johnston also noted that “The eyes and hopes of 8,000,000 of people rest upon you.”20 On the morning of April 3, Beauregard’s chief of staff began writing the marching orders using notes from General Beauregard and a copy of Napoleon’s Waterloo order for a model. It is remarkable that a copy of the Waterloo order was used when that particular battle had met with such disastrous results. 17 Ibid. 18 Bromfield L. Ridley, Battles and Sketches of the Army of Tennessee (Dayton, Ohio: Press of Morningside Bookshop, 1978), 82. 19 Ibid. 20 Ridley, Battles and Sketches of the Army of Tennessee, 82. The Battle of Shiloh was originally planned to begin on the morning of Friday, April 4.21 The planning meeting lasted until 10 a.m. on April 3, four hours after the twenty-mile march was supposed to begin. When at last the army began to leave Corinth, a ‘traffic jam’ ensued. In no time, the roads of Corinth were blocked by a tangled mass of men, wagons, artillery, and horses.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United Confederate Veterans Association Records
    UNITED CONFEDERATE VETERANS ASSOCIATION RECORDS (Mss. 1357) Inventory Compiled by Luana Henderson 1996 Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collections Special Collections, Hill Memorial Library Louisiana State University Libraries Baton Rouge, Louisiana Revised 2009 UNITED CONFEDERATE VETERANS ASSOCIATION RECORDS Mss. 1357 1861-1944 Special Collections, LSU Libraries CONTENTS OF INVENTORY SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3 BIOGRAPHICAL/HISTORICAL NOTE ...................................................................................... 4 SCOPE AND CONTENT NOTE ................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF SUBGROUPS AND SERIES ......................................................................................... 7 SUBGROUPS AND SERIES DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................ 8 INDEX TERMS ............................................................................................................................ 13 CONTAINER LIST ...................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1178937103.Pdf
    i In 1832 the American National Caravan went under the title Na- tional Menagerie and sometimes Grand National Menagerie. It was still June. Titus & Angetine's show and carried the elephants Romeo and Juliet in addition to the rhinoceros. The four animal species that have intrigued menazerie historians The New and Rare Collection of Living Animals (Raymond & 1 ; are the elephant, the hippopotamus, the rhinoceros and the giraffe. Ogdcn) had no elephant until December, 1832 when Ilyder Ali was l The elephant has intrigued everyone, owners, performers, customers, imported and joined them in Charleston. ! the lot. Something about these huge, usually docile animals fas- Each of these shoa-s had a keeper who entered the lion's den in cinates human beings. "Seeing the elephant" is still an event, as the 1833 season. The National Slenagerie had a Mister Roberts from witness circus crowds or zoo-goers of today. The other three beasts. London. Raymond & Ogden (not using that title) had a Mister Gray. i being wild animals, somewhat rare and demanding of more care it is our impression that 1mcVan Amburgh was Roberts* cage boy. than elephants, while spectacular in the early days, do not have the Both rhinos were present as were the elephants. empathy elephants have. Elephants, to the historian, are not a Eighteen thirty-four uw June, Titus & Angevine and Raymond difficult problem in terms of tracing them, because of the habit of & Ogden use the proprietor's name as titles. From this year fonvard giving them names. The others, however, were never so acceptable this was the practice, and researchers are grateful for it.
    [Show full text]
  • Cold Harbor Syndrome: Balanced, Compelling Study' Examines Grant's Overland Miscalculations
    Civil War Book Review Summer 2000 Article 8 Cold Harbor Syndrome: Balanced, Compelling Study' Examines Grant's Overland Miscalculations Gary W. Gallagher Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr Recommended Citation Gallagher, Gary W. (2000) "Cold Harbor Syndrome: Balanced, Compelling Study' Examines Grant's Overland Miscalculations," Civil War Book Review: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 . Available at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr/vol2/iss3/8 Gallagher: Cold Harbor Syndrome: Balanced, Compelling Study' Examines Grant' Review COLD HARBOR SYNDROME 'Balanced, compelling study' examines Grant's Overland miscalculations Gallagher, Gary W. Summer 2000 Furgurson, Ernest B. Not War But Murder: Cold Harbor, 1864. Alfred A. Knopf, 2000-06-01. $27.50 ISBN 679455175 Ulysses S. Grant's offensive against Robert E. Lee's entrenched Army of Northern Virginia at Cold Harbor on June 3, 1864, summons powerful images. Northern assaults that day stand alongside Ambrose E. Burnside's attacks at Fredericksburg and John Bell Hood's at Franklin as examples of seemingly pointless slaughter of brave but doomed soldiers. Even casual students of the conflict know that Grant admitted as much in his memoirs when he confessed that he "always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made." Despite the well-known drama and gruesome butcher's bill on June 3, historians have devoted relatively little attention to Cold Harbor. It served as the last major battle of the Overland campaign, greatly influenced morale behind the lines in the North, and set the stage for Grant's brilliant crossing of the James River - all attributes that invite scrutiny.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War in the Delta: Environment, Race, and the 1863 Helena Campaign George David Schieffler University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2017 Civil War in the Delta: Environment, Race, and the 1863 Helena Campaign George David Schieffler University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Schieffler, George David, "Civil War in the Delta: Environment, Race, and the 1863 Helena Campaign" (2017). Theses and Dissertations. 2426. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2426 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Civil War in the Delta: Environment, Race, and the 1863 Helena Campaign A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History by George David Schieffler The University of the South Bachelor of Arts in History, 2003 University of Arkansas Master of Arts in History, 2005 August 2017 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ____________________________________ Dr. Daniel E. Sutherland Dissertation Director ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Elliott West Dr. Patrick G. Williams Committee Member Committee Member Abstract “Civil War in the Delta” describes how the American Civil War came to Helena, Arkansas, and its Phillips County environs, and how its people—black and white, male and female, rich and poor, free and enslaved, soldier and civilian—lived that conflict from the spring of 1861 to the summer of 1863, when Union soldiers repelled a Confederate assault on the town.
    [Show full text]
  • Callaway County, Missouri During the Civil War a Thesis Presented to the Department of Humanities
    THE KINGDOM OF CALLAWAY: CALLAWAY COUNTY, MISSOURI DURING THE CIVIL WAR A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS By ANDREW M. SAEGER NORTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY MARYVILLE, MISSOURI APRIL 2013 Kingdom of Callaway 1 Running Head: KINGDOM OF CALLAWAY The Kingdom of Callaway: Callaway County, Missouri During the Civil War Andrew M. Saeger Northwest Missouri State University THESIS APPROVED Thesis Advisor Date Dean of Graduate School Date Kingdom of Callaway 2 Abstract During the American Civil War, Callaway County, Missouri had strong sympathies for the Confederate States of America. As a rebellious region, Union forces occupied the county for much of the war, so local secessionists either stayed silent or faced arrest. After a tense, nonviolent interaction between a Federal regiment and a group of armed citizens from Callaway, a story grew about a Kingdom of Callaway. The legend of the Kingdom of Callaway is merely one characteristic of the curious history that makes Callaway County during the Civil War an intriguing study. Kingdom of Callaway 3 Introduction When Missouri chose not to secede from the United States at the beginning of the American Civil War, Callaway County chose its own path. The local Callawegians seceded from the state of Missouri and fashioned themselves into an independent nation they called the Kingdom of Callaway. Or so goes the popular legend. This makes a fascinating story, but Callaway County never seceded and never tried to form a sovereign kingdom. Although it is not as fantastic as some stories, the Civil War experience of Callaway County is a remarkable microcosm in the story of a sharply divided border state.
    [Show full text]
  • George Henry Thomas (July 31, 1816 – March 28, 1870)
    George Henry Thomas (July 31, 1816 – March 28, 1870) "Rock of Chickamauga" "Sledge of Nashville" "Slow Trot Thomas" The City of Fort Thomas was named in honor of Major General George Henry Thomas, who ranks among the top Union Generals of the American Civil War. He was born of Welsh/English and French parents in Virginia on July 31, 1816, and was educated at Southampton Academy. Prior to his military service Thomas studied law and worked as a law deputy for his uncle, James Rochelle, the Clerk of the County Court before he received an appointment to West Point in 1836. He graduated 12th in his class of 42 in 1840 which William T. Sherman was a classmate. After receiving his commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the 3rd Artillery Unit, he served the Army well for the next 30 years. He was made 1st Lieutenant for action against the Indians in Florida for his gallantry in action. In the Mexican War, he served under Braxton Bragg in the Artillery and was twice cited for gallantry—once at Monterey and the other at Buena Vista. From 1851-1854 was an instructor of artillery and cavalry at West Point, where he was promoted to Captain. Following his service at Ft. Yuma in the West, he became a Major and joined the 2nd Cavalry at Jefferson Barracks. The Colonel there was Albert Sidney Johnston and Robert E. Lee was the Lt. Colonel. Other officers in this regiment who were to become famous as Generals were George Stoneman, for the Union, and for the CSA, John B.
    [Show full text]
  • End: Grant Sidebar>>>>>
    FINAL History of Wildwood 1860-1919 (chapter for 2018 printing) In the prior chapter, some of the key factors leading to the Civil War were discussed. Among them were the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the McIntosh Incident in 1836, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which led to “the Bleeding Kansas” border war, and the Dred Scott case which was finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1856. Two books were published during this turbulent pre-war period that reflected the conflicts that were brewing. One was a work of fiction: Uncle Tom’s Cabin or a Life Among the Lowly by Harriet Beecher Stowe published in 1852. It was an anti-slavery novel and helped fuel the abolitionist movement in the 1850s. It was widely popular with 300,000 books sold in the United States in its first year. The second book was nonfiction: Twelve Years a Slave was the memoir of Solomon Northup. Northup was a free born black man from New York state who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. and sold into slavery. He was in bondage for 12 years until family in New York secretly received information about his location and situation and arranged for his release with the assistance of officials of the State of New York. His memoir details the slave markets, the details of sugar and cotton production and the treatment of slaves on major plantations. This memoir, published in 1853, gave factual support to the story told in Stowe’s novel. These two books reflected and enhanced the ideological conflicts that le d to the Civil War.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter One: the Campaign for Chattanooga, June to November 1863
    CHAPTER ONE: THE CAMPAIGN FOR CHATTANOOGA, JUNE TO NOVEMBER 1863 Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park commemorates and preserves the sites of important and bloody contests fought in the fall of 1863. A key prize in the fighting was Chattanooga, Tennessee, an important transportation hub and the gateway to Georgia and Alabama. In the Battle of Chickamauga (September 18-20, 1863), the Confederate Army of Tennessee soundly beat the Federal Army of the Cumberland and sent it in full retreat back to Chattanooga. After a brief siege, the reinforced Federals broke the Confeder- ate grip on the city in a series of engagements, known collectively as the Battles for Chatta- nooga. In action at Brown’s Ferry, Wauhatchie, and Lookout Mountain, Union forces eased the pressure on the city. Then, on November 25, 1863, Federal troops achieved an unex- pected breakthrough at Missionary Ridge just southeast of Chattanooga, forcing the Con- federates to fall back on Dalton, Georgia, and paving the way for General William T. Sherman’s advance into Georgia in the spring of 1864. These battles having been the sub- ject of exhaustive study, this context contains only the information needed to evaluate sur- viving historic structures in the park. Following the Battle of Stones River (December 31, 1862-January 2, 1863), the Federal Army of the Cumberland, commanded by Major General William S. Rosecrans, spent five and one-half months at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, reorganizing and resupplying in preparation for a further advance into Tennessee (Figure 2). General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee was concentrated in the Tullahoma, Tennessee, area.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11: the Civil War, 1861-1865
    The Civil War 1861–1865 Why It Matters The Civil War was a milestone in American history. The four-year-long struggle determined the nation’s future. With the North’s victory, slavery was abolished. During the war, the Northern economy grew stronger, while the Southern economy stagnated. Military innovations, including the expanded use of railroads and the telegraph, coupled with a general conscription, made the Civil War the first “modern” war. The Impact Today The outcome of this bloody war permanently changed the nation. • The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. • The power of the federal government was strengthened. The American Vision Video The Chapter 11 video, “Lincoln and the Civil War,” describes the hardships and struggles that Abraham Lincoln experienced as he led the nation in this time of crisis. 1862 • Confederate loss at Battle of Antietam 1861 halts Lee’s first invasion of the North • Fort Sumter fired upon 1863 • First Battle of Bull Run • Lincoln presents Emancipation Proclamation 1859 • Battle of Gettysburg • John Brown leads raid on federal ▲ arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia Lincoln ▲ 1861–1865 ▲ ▲ 1859 1861 1863 ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ 1861 1862 1863 • Russian serfs • Source of the Nile River • French troops 1859 emancipated by confirmed by John Hanning occupy Mexico • Work on the Suez Czar Alexander II Speke and James A. Grant City Canal begins in Egypt 348 Charge by Don Troiani, 1990, depicts the advance of the Eighth Pennsylvania Cavalry during the Battle of Chancellorsville. 1865 • Lee surrenders to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse • Abraham Lincoln assassinated by John Wilkes Booth 1864 • Fall of Atlanta HISTORY • Sherman marches ▲ A.
    [Show full text]
  • SHILOH National Military Park
    SHILOH National Military Park TENNESSEE clearings, Grant's weary men stood on the North on July 4, 1863. The Confederacy gest you visit the museum in the visitor bluffs above Pittsburg Landing with their was cut in two. center near Pittsburg Landing, which is open SHILOH backs to the river. Here they rallied and, from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. in winter and with the help of massed artillery and two The Park and Cemetery until 5:30 p.m. in summer. Relics, exhibits, NATIONAL gunboats, repulsed the last Confederate at­ and maps relating to the battle and the war Shiloh National Military Park was estab­ tempt to capture the landing. are displayed, and a historical film is shown lished by an act of Congress in 1894. It MILITARY PARK During that rainy night, about 25,000 throughout the day. fresh Union troops, from General Buell's contains about 3,600 acres of Federal lands, Those who plan to visit in a group may army and Gen. Lew Wallace's division, took including the areas of heaviest fighting in receive special service if advance arrange­ Shiloh —" . a case of Southern dash against Northern pluck and endurance . position in Grant's line. At dawn on April the battle. The National Cemetery, estab­ ments are made with the superintendent. The troops on both sides were Americans . united they need not fear any foreign foe." 7, 37,000 Confederates faced Union forces lished in 1866 and containing 10 acres, is —GEN. U. S. GRANT the battle. In the Hornets' Nest, the Union of 55,000, and the thin Confederate line near the visitor center on a bluff overlooking line stood fast, shattering wave after wave gave ground as the Northern counterattack Pittsburg Landing and the Tennessee River.
    [Show full text]
  • Stalking Elephants in Nevada Thomas N. Layton Western Folklore, Vol. 35
    Stalking Elephants in Nevada Thomas N. Layton Western Folklore, Vol. 35, No. 4. (Oct., 1976), pp. 250-257. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-373X%28197610%2935%3A4%3C250%3ASEIN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 Western Folklore is currently published by Western States Folklore Society. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/wsfs.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Wed Jan 23 23:37:03 2008 Stalking Elephants in Nevada THOMAS N.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Sailor's Creek
    THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS December 2005 Major Subject: History THE BATTLE OF SAILOR’S CREEK: A STUDY IN LEADERSHIP A Thesis by CLOYD ALLEN SMITH JR. Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Approved by: Chair of Committee, Joseph Dawson Committee Members, James Bradford Joseph Cerami Head of Department, Walter L. Buenger December 2005 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT The Battle of Sailor’s Creek: A Study in Leadership. (December 2005) Cloyd Allen Smith Jr., B.A., Slippery Rock University Chair: Dr. Joseph Dawson The Battle of Sailor’s Creek, 6 April 1865, has been overshadowed by Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House several days later, yet it is an example of the Union military war machine reaching its apex of war making ability during the Civil War. Through Ulysses S. Grant’s leadership and that of his subordinates, the Union armies, specifically that of the Army of the Potomac, had been transformed into a highly motivated, organized and responsive tool of war, led by confident leaders who understood their commander’s intent and were able to execute on that intent with audacious initiative in the absence of further orders. After Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia escaped from Petersburg and Richmond on 2 April 1865, Grant’s forces chased after Lee’s forces with the intent of destroying the mighty and once feared iv protector of the Confederate States in the hopes of bringing a swift end to the long war.
    [Show full text]